Linguistic note: "It's a Canon L-series and should be giving you excellent IQ," is a statement with two separate clauses, not a dependent clause, as in, "It's a Canon L-series and so should be giving you excellent IQ."

You are supposed to be a surgeon or something like that, not a linguist or otherwise I wouldn't have dared to comment on your comment :-> ... though it's good you clarified this because some time ago I was under the impression all L lenses have to have top iq, and most salesmen offering them would tell the same :-p

The 24-105L is a very good lens, espeically stopped down to f/8 which the OP mentions.

No doubt, but as far as I have read about it you can still get softer results because the IS is older and it's not sharpest wide open (the latter like my 70-300L, 17-40L) - I mentioned this because the op's shot was wide open with strong bokeh.

I think this thread brings out a simple painful? truth. That is electronics have developed to the point, that the overwhelming advantage the FF cameras had some years back - is rapidly closing down.

But this is just because the 5d3 and 6d have failed to make any significant sensor update - ff has much more potential left for higher mp (look at the Nikon d800), so if your lenses can keep up ff has a bright future for many types of photography.

I experienced the same phenomenon with the 5D/24-70. It didn't seem to have that punch. The pics looked merely above average and I didn't understand what the fuss was about...was it something I was doing? Was it the camera? A mediocre copy of the lens?

It was only later (too late, after the event) that I discovered a backfocus- it wasn't severe but it was enough to soften pics...and ruin a handful of shots, unfortunately.

I figured out the lens needed MF adjustment... -1 on both ends seemed to get it back on track. Now...all I have to say is Wow!

Well I did some micro adjustments and I must say I notice a huge difference now. Pictures really have that 'pop' and look much better. I had never experienced back or front focusing before and my old rebel (as far as I know?) never had any micro adjustment feature. Learn something new every day!

I can see the 6D and my omd going together quite well. I was hesitant for a long time to go m43 due to the smaller sensor but the IQ from the latest gen sensors and the prime lenses is simply amazing, and very portable. FF Canon still has some lenses that aren't available for mft and sometimes I do want the super thin DOF available to FF cameras. Fortunately for me, most of what I shoot requires more DOF and mft is an advantage there.

In my experience taking pictures of things in and around your house is not a good test of anything. Everything looks crap. Go out and do some portraits or landscapes. Shoot into the sun to test flare and contrast. Shoot in pitch black to test AF. Take night city shots with long shutter speeds.

I pretty sure if you took that pic with an iphone 5 it would look the same too.

Similar thing happened to me when I got my 7D and 17-55. According to Focal it needed +5. Yeah that made a freakin huge difference. Also how you process the RAW file will make a difference. I notice the full frame images hold up better over aps-c.

Fortunately for me, most of what I shoot requires more DOF and mft is an advantage there.

It is not. It only has the disadvantage of not being able to provide less DOF when needed. You do not have a format based limit how deep DOF you can get - the only limit is diffraction.

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF. Rarely do I want the DOF that even f2.8 provides on FF, so I like that more is in focus. It works for me.

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

Why would it not be? For portraits I prefer to have the entire face in focus, not just eye lashes or a nose. I like as much as possible to be in focus for landscapes as well.

So you stop down on FF. You can use cheaper/lighter lenses. The point is, FF gives you the freedom to choose shallow or deep DoF, to suit your creativity. Smaller sensors don't give you that same freedom.

I am aware. What I meant, for example is I can easily do portraits at f2 and it would be similar to f4 on FF. Or a landscape at f8 with similar f16 on FF.

And why is that an advantage?

Why would it not be? For portraits I prefer to have the entire face in focus, not just eye lashes or a nose. I like as much as possible to be in focus for landscapes as well.

So you stop down on FF. You can use cheaper/lighter lenses. The point is, FF gives you the freedom to choose shallow or deep DoF, to suit your creativity. Smaller sensors don't give you that same freedom.

I'm not saying they don't. Just that for me it works just fine.The biggest reason for me to use mft is size and weight.

Anyway, this thread wasn't intended to be a crop vs ff debate. I have applied micro adjustments and now I am much happier with the gear. Definitely much better IQ than what I had originally. ISO performance is simply amazing too. Sensor tech has come a long way.

Canon's raw files are often pretty flat and may well need a bit of extra contrast and/or saturation to really pop, especially in a muted scene like that. However in those two you have much better bokeh in the 6D picture which makes a difference and it looks a bit crisper but the colour balance of the olympus makes it look a bit more appealing.